My reaction on the first three readings was this should say "or later" rather than "or lower". I think I've worked out now why you chose "lower", but I wonder whether this line could be improved. You could just leave it at "Target JRE is 1.5 (Java 5)" given the commitment that all judges will test with that.

Off to find an installer for a 1.5 JRE for testing purposes...Edit: Wow. It's been EOL'd.

I have a query about the submission and html... will the java4k site simply ask for the applet jar, the dimensions of the applet and some information text when submitting or will it be allowed to provide user defined html?

edit: cant get to java4k.com at work so sorry if this has been answered... will look when i get home

Each participant in the community voting will be required to grade no more and no less than 20 games.

Does that mean you are only allowed to vote on 20, no matter what, or that you must vote on at least 20, but you can vote on as many as you want?

If you mean the former, then I think that's pretty detrimental because then many games (the least interesting-looking ones) will not get voted on at all. If you mean the latter, then you should probably rephrase the wording to "at least 20 games." Also you should mention what's requiring them to do it. For example, "Each participant in the community voting will be required to grade at least 20 games, or their own submission will not be counted."

Typo:

Quote

Final noteAs with all contests and rules, it is impossible to forsee every possibility. Therefor, the administration reserves the right to reject games that do not follow the spirit of the 4K competition, e.g. try to cheat or bypass competition rules.

Therefore is missing its e.

I am still unsure what you mean about networking stuff. In a peer-to-peer scenario, obviously the same applet must have the capability to be either the client or the server, so that's a no brainer. However, the case of having a persistent server is more confusing. Do I need to make an applet that can be started via command line as a persistent server, and can also run as the client? That's what I assume it is, but your line "Both Client and Server must be submitted to Java4K." is a bit confusing, as it implies that you could have separate jars submitted for each.

That actually makes me think of something else, too. What if you could submit a separate server and a separate client, and they were separately under 4k, and yet each had some separate redeeming value. For example, you could put an incredibly simple (and cheap) implementation of pong in your server as the face of the thing in Java 4k, then you could have the rest of the 4k be spent as the server information for the client. I'm guessing this would violate the "spirit of 4k" rule.

Does that mean you are only allowed to vote on 20, no matter what, or that you must vote on at least 20, but you can vote on as many as you want?

If you mean the former, then I think that's pretty detrimental because then many games (the least interesting-looking ones) will not get voted on at all. If you mean the latter, then you should probably rephrase the wording to "at least 20 games." Also you should mention what's requiring them to do it. For example, "Each participant in the community voting will be required to grade at least 20 games, or their own submission will not be counted."

Typo:Therefore is missing its e.

I am still unsure what you mean about networking stuff. In a peer-to-peer scenario, obviously the same applet must have the capability to be either the client or the server, so that's a no brainer. However, the case of having a persistent server is more confusing. Do I need to make an applet that can be started via command line as a persistent server, and can also run as the client? That's what I assume it is, but your line "Both Client and Server must be submitted to Java4K." is a bit confusing, as it implies that you could have separate jars submitted for each.

That actually makes me think of something else, too. What if you could submit a separate server and a separate client, and they were separately under 4k, and yet each had some separate redeeming value. For example, you could put an incredibly simple (and cheap) implementation of pong in your server as the face of the thing in Java 4k, then you could have the rest of the 4k be spent as the server information for the client. I'm guessing this would violate the "spirit of 4k" rule.

Regarding community voting, I am still thinking about the best way.

You are correct about the networking rules. I'm still ironing out some things there, so comments are welcome. I've already updated it to clear out some ambiguity. In any case, it shouldn't be too complex. Networking is surely allowed, everything just needs to be counted towards those 4096 bytes, and the user shouldn't have to do anything special to run the game.

how about every person who submits a game is given number of random submitted games (non-authored) to review/vote in order to be an elligble contenstant?

Not sure if that's the best way.

Perhaps giving each user 100 points, which he can use to assign to his favorite games. The maximum amount of points any one game can receive from the same user is 10 points. This ensures that the user votes on at least 10 games, but can vote on up to 100 unique games if he wishes.

Let's just face it, the reality is that people will never go through all the games, one by one, as the judges do. That's why we also have a judging process, to ensure all games get a fair shake.

Allowing people to hand pick out their favorite games will draw out the best community games. I think this best reflects the opinion of the community.

Perhaps giving each user 100 points, which he can use to assign to his favorite games. The maximum amount of points any one game can receive from the same user is 10 points. This ensures that the user votes on at least 10 games, but can vote on up to 100 unique games if he wishes.

Let's just face it, the reality is that people will never go through all the games, one by one, as the judges do. That's why we also have a judging process, to ensure all games get a fair shake.

Allowing people to hand pick out their favorite games will draw out the best community games. I think this best reflects the opinion of the community.

What about a combination?10 randomly assigned games, and 10 chosen games. I just want to be sure that all games get at least a little bit of community vote. This way, the best looking games will still be chosen the most, but, on average, every game will be voted on at least a little bit. One thing I didn't like about JGO Comp 2009 was that the voting spread between popular and unpopular games (in terms of look and the user who created them) was pretty massive. Even though I think the better ones clearly won, users who were unable to create pretty art or who were relatively unknown in the forums would have very very few reviews, which I don't feel is very helpful for people who are just starting out.

Perhaps giving each user 100 points, which he can use to assign to his favorite games. The maximum amount of points any one game can receive from the same user is 10 points. This ensures that the user votes on at least 10 games, but can vote on up to 100 unique games if he wishes.

Let's just face it, the reality is that people will never go through all the games, one by one, as the judges do. That's why we also have a judging process, to ensure all games get a fair shake.

Allowing people to hand pick out their favorite games will draw out the best community games. I think this best reflects the opinion of the community.

Make that most people. The year they did a community vote I went and played all 68 games before choosing my top 5. That was the same year that most people went through alphabetically and stop halfway before evaluating most games. My best game to that point started with "T" (Tank War) so was never even looked at by the community at large. That is why I hate community votes. But as long as there are regular judges along with the community vote then I have no problem.

PS I didn't expect to win that year, but thought I was at least top 20.

What about a combination?10 randomly assigned games, and 10 chosen games. I just want to be sure that all games get at least a little bit of community vote. This way, the best looking games will still be chosen the most, but, on average, every game will be voted on at least a little bit. One thing I didn't like about JGO Comp 2009 was that the voting spread between popular and unpopular games (in terms of look and the user who created them) was pretty massive. Even though I think the better ones clearly won, users who were unable to create pretty art or who were relatively unknown in the forums would have very very few reviews, which I don't feel is very helpful for people who are just starting out.

Make that most people. The year they did a community vote I went and played all 68 games before choosing my top 5. That was the same year that most people went through alphabetically and stop halfway before evaluating most games. My best game to that point started with "T" (Tank War) so was never even looked at by the community at large. That is why I hate community votes. But as long as there are regular judges along with the community vote then I have no problem.

PS I didn't expect to win that year, but thought I was at least top 20.

Perhaps giving each user 100 points, which he can use to assign to his favorite games. The maximum amount of points any one game can receive from the same user is 10 points. This ensures that the user votes on at least 10 games, but can vote on up to 100 unique games if he wishes.

If there is a need for the game to be signed and the signed game package exceeds 4096 bytes, then an unsigned game package, that is below or equal to 4096 bytes, must be provided.

Presumably it'll be the unsigned<=4096 that will be judged, not the signed>4096? (otherwise, I could provide a do-nothing stub app. for the unsigned version, and a game of unlimited size for my signed submission)

This might be a bit late, but.. Shouldn't we force all applets to be unsigned?Users shouldn't be forced to give away control of their entire computers just to play a 4k game.

Most of these games do not require any signing. But there is always some one idiot that wants to be able to submit a multiplayer game, and that requires signing the app. In the past, signing hasn't been considered an issue, but hm, I don't know. Do we want a rule banning signed games?

Markus makes a good point (users really shouldn't have to dive through scary dialogs), but I don't think it's something that should be ruled out. If a developer wants to waste space by signing while simultaneously stabbing their game's overall experience .. I say.. let them.

But, I guess you should take that opinion with a pinch of salt, as I don't even agree that applets should be enforced. I rather liked some of the fullscreen 4K games back in the day..

I was indeed trying to think of a way to have an incredibly simple 4k MMO. :-P

I still want to try it. For the challenge, not to make a good game.

FYI: I've added the following text to the Rules page. Not really a rule, just a text for clarification on the status of judges.

Quote

Due to the fact there is community voting, judges are free to submit a game into the contest.* Note: These games will only be voted on in the community vote. They will not be considered by the judging panel, and therefore will receive no score from the judging panel. Community voting is separate and independent from the judging panel, and cannot affect or influence each other. This allows judges to submit games for community voting without worrying about any conflict of interest.

If anyone has a rational objection to this, please say so.

I've thought about this issue over and over, and can't think of any conflict of interest. Let me explain: Community voting is by itself a judging panel, and all voters are judges, and consider the fact there is nothing prohibiting voters to judge their own games or games by others. If anything, there is more conflict of interest in the community voting as voters can influence the order of their own game. But I guess the mass should keep things in balance.

This might be a bit late, but.. Shouldn't we force all applets to be unsigned?Users shouldn't be forced to give away control of their entire computers just to play a 4k game.

I've got a sheep herding game in development. It needs signing as it uses the microphone for voice (whistle) control. It's 2D plan view. You control the shepherd with the keyword and control the sheepdog by whistling. The whistle controller is working!

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org